If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Healthcare.gov

John Casaretto, the Angle’s cyber security editor, said the online insurance exchange sites are “failing in every respect across the board.”
Casaretto wrote:

Can you think of anything in history of the web that was worse? This is the government of course and history indicates that the exchange was probably built by a number of the cheapest available contractors through a bidding program, that is actually pretty close, but just wait until you hear about the money. The contractors behind the exchange were CGI Federal, who built the site, Quality Software Systems Inc. (CSSI) – a Canadian company that built the information hub, and Booz Allen who is responsible for enrollment and eligibility technical support. Somewhere in that soup of contractors, they built a site that – /wait for it/ – was built for 50,000 to 60,000 concurrent users at a total cost (so far) of $634 million. Feel free to replay that ratio. $634,000,000/50,000. Here’s another ratio to ponder – 50,000 users in 50 states. I guess if you can get the work….you do it. In this case unfortunately for many the product is downright poor.

Had also previously read that the original cost was supposed to be something like $63 million ... so they spent about 10X the original estimated cost ... and it doesn't work.

Another article quoted an "avowed Obama supporter" in this industry who said he would be embarrassed to have put out a product like this.

Another computer geek said this is NOT just about small glitches. It is a major mess.

Can hardly wait till they get to the part about acutally administering the health care.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

This is the Federal site that supports the users whose states didn't set up exchanges. The states that did set up the exchanges seem to be doing just fine. It's the 25 or so states that didn't and depend on the Federal exchange (which by the way, isn't provided for in the law). So, the bill is for 634 million dollars to support half the states.

Meanwhile, I understand that a total of 7 people managed to sign up in Iowa.

Asked by CBS to comment on the mess that is the Healthcare.gov website, Luke Chung, a database programmer and professed Obama supporter, admitted that “it wasn’t designed well, it wasn’t implemented well, and it looks like nobody tested it.” Chung confirmed that this had nothing to do with demand or to first-day bugs. “It’s not even close,” he suggested. “It’s not even ready for beta testing for my book. I would be ashamed and embarrassed if my organization delivered something like that.”

A similarly brutal piece, from Reuters, features a web-design expert explaining that the site is a structural mess, designed so badly that the data flow between the user and the server looks “as if the system was attacking itself.”

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Looks like states should have taken responsibility for their own sites rather than 36 of 50 leaving it up to the feds. I hear that most if not all of the state sites are working well with many buying insurance. Republican governors and legislature have spared no effort in seeing that Obamacare fail.

"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

Looks like states should have taken responsibility for their own sites rather than 36 of 50 leaving it up to the feds. I hear that most if not all of the state sites are working well with many buying insurance. Republican governors and legislature have spared no effort in seeing that Obamacare fail.

The Feds spend $634 million on a software program, it doesn't work and it's the states fault???

Looks like states should have taken responsibility for their own sites rather than 36 of 50 leaving it up to the feds. I hear that most if not all of the state sites are working well with many buying insurance. Republican governors and legislature have spared no effort in seeing that Obamacare fail.

In PA the reason given for not expanding Medicaid was that PA already offers more benefits in its Medicaid program than many other states do.

There is also the issue that after the first three years, the states will then pay 10% of the cost of the Medicaid expansion. This doesn't seem like much, but we can see that there are quite a lot of state and local govts (counties, cities) are having debt problems with unfunded liabilities. So that 10% of a larger number of Medicaid recipients might still prove to be more than some states will have available. Or will those states have to raise some other taxes to compensate for the increased expense? If that is the case, I'm sure they don't want to talk much about it right now.

In Hawaii, the system will require, after those first three years, that the participants pay a 2% tax to keep the system self-sufficient. So, presumably, the state of Hawaii will only pay 8% of the 10% that will be the responsibility of the state. Will they also be raising other state taxes to cover that 8%?

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.